Monday, December 07, 2009

Mind the Gap: Obama's Job Approval Spread Narrows to Record Low 3.9%, vs. 44.2% in January

From a spread of 44.2 points at the end of January for Obama (63.5% Approve - 19.3% Disapprove), the Real Clear Politics poll average has now narrowed to a record low spread of 3.9% points (49% Approve - 45.1% Disapprove).

I didn't vote for Obama but I think it's a bit unfair to except him to do so much in one year.

It's perfectly fair and appropriate to expect him to have addressed the problems he helped create, given that he enjoys huge Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress. The polls show that people are unimpressed with the decisions he has made and the priorities that he and the Democrats have pursued. Jimmy Carter must be beside himself with glee. Finally, a president whose incompetence even makes him look good.

Let's be honest here guys. The only reason Obama's approval ratings are falling is because of the faltering economy.

Jimmy Carter is not a proper parallel to draw. Ronald Reagan is a much better one. Reagan took power at the beginning of another worse recession since the Great Depression. People were impatient and Reagan's approval rating fell quickly. It bottomed out at 35% in 1982. He and his party faced a shellacking at the midterms. But as the economy recovered, Reagan's approval ratings recovered.

"People knew they what they were voting for...just had unrealistic expectations."

He did his best to muddy the water, promising a "net spending cut," declaring himself a free-trader, and vowed to go "line-by-line" through the budget to root out waste. True, anyone paying the slightest attention should have known it was complete bullshit, but that doesn't excuse his lies about what he intended to do to us.

The only reason Obama's approval ratings are falling is because of the faltering economy.

You're right, it has nothing to do with his running surreal deficits, gifting tens of billions of dollars to his union cronies, granting constitutional rights to terrorists captured on the battlefield, slighting our closest allies, prostrating himself in front of kings, glad handing with Castro and Chavez, firing IG's in an effort to cover for his political cronies sexual advances toward schoolgirls, appointing strident communists to key positions in his administration, appointing a sexual deviant as "Safe Schools Czar", attempting to socialize health care and impose huge energy taxes. No, comparing him to Carter is an insult - to Carter.

stevedp86--I can tell by your comments you were the sweet spot of Obama's demographic--not so bright, gullible, hearing what you wanted to hear, seeking a savior and miracle worker.It was very clear, well before the election who BO was--very left wing, bad choice of friends, history of finding fault with the Constituion etc.He inherited many things, some good and some bad; some Bush's fault and some not. BO has succeeded in making most of them much worse.I see that odds as 60-40 that he is actually attempting to destroy the US as we've know it for ~250 years. If not, he's dangerously incompetent.

INFILTRATE, INDOCTRINATE, DEMORALIZE, INTIMIDATE THEN FOLLOWS NORMALIZATIONWhat is the difference between Marxism, Communism, and Socialism? These days, not much. In the beginningthe main difference was disagreement on how to achieve their common goal of complete control of a Nation'speople, resources and wealth.

The ideologies melded over the years and even though the movement for world domination suffered manysetbacks, Communism did not die with the fall of the Berlin wall and the rending of the iron curtain.The wordCommunism became so unpopular the name changed to Socialism, then Liberalism, then to Progressive.They have even been somewhat open about what they are doing, the Communist goals for the United Stateswere entered into the Congressional record in June, 1963. They stopped using bombs and tanksto conquer and pillage, their formula now is, I. I. D. I. N. Infiltrate, Indoctrinate, Demoralize, Intimidate then followsNormalization. Infiltration started in the U.S. in earnest in the late 1940's. Indoctrination began in earnestin the 1960's.A KGB agent, Yuri Bezmenov who defected in 1970 and taped an interview (video and partial transcript embedded here:)America In Perilsaid in 1984 that the Indoctrination and Demoralization of America was complete. The promotion of ugly art and musicand calling it beautiful, the promotion of promiscuity, perversion and nudity are now considered "freedom of speech".and "freedom of expression." Bezmenov said the American people after 25 years of indoctrination and demoralizationwere no longer able to assimilate true information, that showered with facts, photos, and even seeing with their owneyes they still would not believe.

America is now in the Intimidation stage, as witnessed by the attacks on critics of the Administration. The threatsto Insurance companies and banks that would not accept Government control. All that is needed now is a Crisissevere enough to give the Government an excuse to isolate incarcerate and neutralize dissenters. A pandemic suchas a more deadly (mutated version) of the H1N1 virus could be used as an excuse.

If the current health care plan is passed, and the Cap and Trade Bill is passed, the attacks on dissenters will continueuntil the people are enslaved. Then there will be a period of Normalization. Every aspect of American lives willbe controlled by the Government.

Which is why I said people knew who they were voted for...so why are they disapproving of his current policies?

I'm not sure if you caught it or not because I didn't vote for Obama and disagree with him on a lot of (most) things. What I'm trying to say is, you need to give him a chance regardless of if you agree or disagree with him. He is our President...he was elected by a majority, and those people voted for his liberal social and economic stance. If people disagree and want change again (revert back to conservatism--then our chance is first the midterm elections and then 2012).

By the way, I'll just add that I'm a recent college grad, and a Republican in Boston, MA. Born and raised in Connecticut. So yeah 90 out of 100 people I meet are Democrats. Take that for what it is.

stevedp86 said... ...people knew who they were voted for...so why are they disapproving of his current policies?

...What I'm trying to say is, you need to give him a chance regardless of if you agree or disagree with him. He is our President...he was elected by a majority, and those people voted for his liberal social and economic stance....

He most certainly did not run as an extreme liberal. He portrayed himself as being to the right of Hilary. He even ridiculed Hilary's idea of required health insurance. Yet look what we're staring at now. Would people have been ok if he promised to take over GM and hand a large portion of it to the UAW? How about if he said he'd sign a bill with 9,000 earmarks soon after taking office? He in fact promised the opposite.

But regardless of that, the graph clearly shows he has lost a lot of people who voted for him, and even more who supported him. So this quaint idea that everyone should just go along for 2 years is ridiculous. He's not even close to what was advertised.

Yes, there is a surface similarity between Obama's political trajectory and Reagan's over the first year. It may well continue through the midterms, but I think the parallel will end soon afterward. The U.S. economy had recovered toward the end of 1983 and then roared through the 1984 election.

But unless someone can suggest to me how the moribund U.S. economy is going to recover by 2011, I'm thinking the parallel is going to end.

I can hardly believe I'm saying this, but I seriously think that Obama and a whole bunch of Democrats (not all) are willing to sacrifice themselves on the altar of government health care and environmental extremism. They're willing to get crushed in 2010 and even 2012 if it means they can finally bring the hated system down.

Machiavelli999 said:Jimmy Carter is not a proper parallel to draw. Ronald Reagan is a much better one. Reagan took power at the beginning of another worse recession since the Great Depression. People were impatient and Reagan's approval rating fell quickly. It bottomed out at 35% in 1982. He and his party faced a shellacking at the midterms. But as the economy recovered, Reagan's approval ratings recovered.

I think the same thing will happen with Obama.

Machiavelli is right and wrong in this case. Obama is very much like carter,in that he's, indecisive, leftist,anti business. Mack was right about the curve, and reagan falling bellow 40% with a hostile press blasting his every move. But the theory falls apart, because what mack does not say, is that when Carter was ousted by Reagan the economy and the state of the nation was horrible, I remeber my folks having to buy gas on odd days only during the carter years, run away inflation, rampent unemployment and crime, the soviets on the march, The crazy double muslims with the beards and robes unleashed on the world in Iran. Mack also leaves out that reagan's policies and tax cuts are the exact oposite of what Obama and the left in congress have unleashed on the nation. So there will be no recovery after the mid term blood bath in 2010 to raise the sinking Osamabama ship, and the mid term elections in 1982 will seem but a minor course adjustment alongside that of comming earthquake at the polls the party of obama will suffer this comming november.